Local Success vs. County Cuts: The Battle for Gresham’s Homeless Services

In the shadow of Portland’s persistent struggles, the city of Gresham, Oregon, has quietly built a model of success that stands in stark contrast to the regional chaos. While the broader Multnomah County apparatus grapples with a staggering $87 million deficit in its homeless services budget, Gresham’s localized approach has delivered tangible results. However, as the 2026 fiscal year begins, the battle for Gresham’s Homeless Services Team has become a flashpoint in the struggle between local accountability and bloated regional bureaucracy.

For the residents of Gresham, a community of 113,000 that values the rule of law and fiscal responsibility, the stakes could not be higher. The city’s four-person homeless services team has managed to reduce the number of unsheltered individuals from 138 to fewer than 40 over the last decade. Yet, despite this track record, the team’s survival was recently threatened by a county-wide budget crisis born of mismanagement and the expiration of one-time "bridge" funds. Only through the aggressive intervention of local leaders has the funding been secured, highlighting a growing divide in how East County residents view their relationship with the Portland-centric regional government.

Then

The seeds of the current crisis were sown in 2016 with the formation of the Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS). At the time, regional leaders promised that a unified, "joint" approach between Multnomah County and the City of Portland would streamline services and eliminate duplication. It was framed as a progressive triumph of regionalism over local silos.

By 2021, the system was further emboldened by the Metro Supportive Housing Services levy, a tax on high earners that flooded the region with hundreds of millions of dollars. This era of "historic expansion" saw the JOHS budget swell to over $334 million. However, the results rarely matched the rhetoric. While the regional bureaucracy grew, the streets of Portland became synonymous with unchecked camping and a breakdown of public order. The regional model prioritized the "system"—a vast network of non-profits and administrative layers—over the granular, street-level accountability required to actually solve the problem. Gresham, meanwhile, maintained its own lean team, often finding itself at odds with a county that seemed more interested in managing homelessness than ending it.

Now

Today, the bill for that regional expansion has come due. As of August 4, 2026, Multnomah County is navigating a fiscal landscape defined by a 26% reduction in homeless services funding. The expiration of pandemic-era federal funds and lower-than-expected tax revenues have left an $87 million hole in the department’s budget. In June, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners adopted a $4 billion budget that included deep cuts to shelters and outreach programs.

Amidst this wreckage, Gresham’s Homeless Services Team emerged as a target for potential cuts, despite its unparalleled efficiency. The team, which includes specialists like Willie Shaw, operates on a simple but effective premise: build trust, enforce city codes, and navigate individuals into permanent housing. Unlike the regional programs that often allow camping to persist indefinitely, Gresham strictly enforces its no-camping ordinance, ensuring that "outreach" leads to actual placement rather than just moving a tent from one block to the next.

As of May 1, 2026, the Gresham team had already exceeded its housing goals for the fiscal year by 49%, housing 151 individuals. Recognizing this success, District 4 Commissioner Vince Jones-Dixon introduced the "East County Package" of budget amendments. Amendment #1 specifically secured $1,220,795 in ongoing funding to maintain the Gresham Homeless Services Team at full capacity. Jones-Dixon’s fight was a direct response to the concerns of East County families who have long felt their tax dollars are swallowed by Portland’s failures while their own successful programs are left to starve.

The Parallel

The parallel between the 2016 formation of the JOHS and the 2026 budget battle is the recurring failure of regionalism to provide local results. In both instances, the regional government sought to centralize power and funding, only to find that a one-size-fits-all approach fails to address the unique needs of a community like Gresham.

Just as the Lansing Budget Clash: Migrant Aid vs. Police Staffing Shortfalls demonstrated a conflict between ideological spending and core community safety, the Gresham situation pits a high-performing, accountable local team against a regional system that has lost its way. The Gresham team’s success is rooted in its small size and its direct connection to the city it serves. When Willie Shaw tells a client, "I got you," it is backed by the authority of a city that expects results and the enforcement of local laws. This is a far cry from the anonymous, often unaccountable case management provided by the county’s larger contractors.

The Lesson

The lesson for Gresham—and for the nation—is that subsidiarity works. When social services are managed at the local level, they are subject to the scrutiny of the people they serve. The Gresham Homeless Services Team succeeded not because it had the most money, but because it had the most accountability. It operated within a framework that respected the rule of law and the expectations of the taxpayers.

Regionalism, by contrast, often serves as a shield for failure. By diluting responsibility across multiple jurisdictions and agencies, the regional model ensures that no one is truly to blame when the numbers go the wrong way. The fact that Commissioner Jones-Dixon had to fight to save a program that was 49% over its goals is an indictment of the entire Multnomah County system.

For Gresham to remain a safe, thriving community, it must continue to assert its sovereignty over these local issues. The "East County Package" is a start, but the long-term solution lies in decoupling successful local programs from the sinking ship of regional bureaucracy. Accountability cannot be outsourced, and as Gresham has proven, the best way to help those in need is to keep the solutions close to home.